INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON ENGINEERING AND PRODUCT DESIGN EDUCATION
13-14 SEPTEMBER 2007, NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY, NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE, UNITED KINGDOM
MAPPING KEY FACTORS IN VALUE
INNOVATION
Stuart English
Northumbria University
ABSTRACT
This paper investigates how value innovation occurs in product design by examining a
number of case study projects that have resulted in innovative outcomes, in many cases
leading to the protection of intellectual property. The paper explores the structuring of
project specific design solution space and in particular the identification of key issues
found to be cornerstones of the respective innovations. Many researchers have
recognised the importance of ‘problem framing’ [1] described by Dorst and Cross [2] as
‘crucial to high level performance in creative design’. In the terrain of the design
problem referred to by Schon as the ‘swampy lowlands’ the creative designer tolerates a
level of ambiguity [3] in order to create the space for innovation. This ‘fuzzy situation’
[4] is bounded by the cornerstones of the problem solution pairing. Whitehead [5]
suggests that this ‘span’ can comprise up to 6 or 7 key issues and that the designer’s
choice of issues is key to the value of the potential outcome. The framing of problems
using mind-mapping techniques [6] is explored firstly to appreciate the extent of the
designer’s solution space and secondly to consider the interrelationships of issues that
subsequently proved key to particular innovations.
The paper concludes by offering general observations on the identification and mapping
of key factors necessary for successful and distinctive value innovation.
Keywords: Value distinction, problem space, concept mapping, cognitive modelling,
cognitive span, cornerstones of innovation.
1
CREATING VALUE THROUGH DESIGN
We might describe designing as a process of creating value for people. Expert designers
take £1 worth of raw material – do design to it and make it worth £20. But how does
this intellectual and emotional process of forming and organising come about and how
can the process of generating value through design be replicated in new and different
situations? ‘Value engineering’ [7] is a well-established concept that deals with the
functional value of a product in relation to it’s cost. The idea is that the value of a
product can be increased either by reducing the cost, or increasing the functional value,
or both. Designers however are not only concerned with the physical function of a
product but also how it feels and what it means. Designers operate across all ‘three
worlds of mankind’ [8] the physical world, the world of personal experience and the
world of shared concepts. Thus when framing a problem the designer’s attention must
span different but interrelated aspects of value, these can be distinguished as:
•
Functional Value, what a design does.
•
Experiential Value, the users experience of how it does it.
•
The Value of Social Meaning, the label we give it.
1
A design may be modelled and the outcome judged against one or more of these factors
and the commercial value that arises may in turn be specifically protected as intellectual
property (as illustrated in table 1).
2
MODELLING VALUE IN DESIGN PROBLEMS
Most researchers consider design method to involve the solving of ill-defined complex
problems [9, 10] that comprise interrelating and interdependent aims. Such problems are
neither clear nor ever fully understood by the designer who operates in a state of
‘bounded instability’ [11] framing the problem [1] in a way that maintains a tolerance of
ambiguity [3]. As Cross demonstrates [12] such framing of problems is a key skill of the
expert designer who instead of dealing with an objective is concerned with the more
fluid concept of ‘problem space’ [13] that considers combination of value factors in
relationship. Problem space describes the bounds of the problem and therefore frames
the designer’s attention without restricting creativity. In contrast with a process of
deductive reasoning, this approach is more value oriented than objective oriented [14].
The cognitive modelling of problem space in the design process gives rise to a problem
solution pairing where the understanding of problem and solution develop concurrently
as part of the creative event [2]. If we consider value innovation in terms of the
cognitive modelling of problem space i.e. arising from how we think about the problem,
our creative potential relies on the tools, models and mechanisms we employ to focus
our attention. English, Nathan and Whitcome’s model (Figure 1) deals with the three
aspects of value introduced above (Function, Experience and Social Meaning) in terms
of; What is being designed, How it is being designed and the Context for the design.
Figure 1: English, Nathan & Whitcombe (2006), Problem space diagram (left) and ‘How’ Plan (right)
In this model the functional value, or ‘What’ part of the problem space is constrained in
order to provide scope for the creative exploration of the ‘How’ part i.e. the experiential
value. So in their design for a steam iron Nathan and Whitcombe concentrate on How
the user fills the water tank and adjusts the temperature rather than considering
innovation in terms of What they are designing. The resulting design appears to gesture
in a way that engages the user in different kinds of interaction intended to build a
cognitive ‘relationship’ with the product. This led Young Nathan and Whitcome [15] to
coin the term ‘Productality’ as a way to describe the perceived personality of a product.
3
COGNITIVE MODELLING OF PROBLEM SPACE
As DeBono points out [16] ‘Creativity involves breaking out of established patterns in
order to look at things in a different way’. Because design problems are complex, fluid
and ill-defined designers need to find ways to focus their attention on precisely what
2
matters, at the same time excluding what does not matter. The designer ‘requires means
for filling in the new and for promptly eliminating large areas of alternatives which
would be found not to meet his objectives’ [7]. This involves both choosing the aims
and issues that matter and creating ways of seeing these interrelating issues as problem
space. Thus the ‘Universal Form’ of a design problem [17] ‘occurs as an abstract
perception of mind allowing the designer to model the particular physical form or
interaction’. Designers use a variety of thinking tools to frame problems including,
sketches, story boards mood boards and mental models. However the important key
factors in value innovation are perhaps best communicated and understood in
relationship through a process of concept mapping.
3.1 Concept Mapping
‘Concept mapping is a unique technique for externalising the cognitive structure of the
students. Using concept mapping students communicate on the level of the whole
picture of the problem space, representing their prior knowledge and vision.’ [18]
We can distinguish a number of distinct forms of concept mapping that often occur in
sequence in the design process: Radiant Mind Mapping as pioneered by Tony Buzan [6]
enables the designer to appreciate their own perception of a particular concept or issue
by contextualising it relative to their own experience, judgements and assumptions.
Such maps radiate from a single centre of enquiry and are often used at the start of the
design process, enabling the designer to picture the entire design brief as a whole.
Starting with a radiant map it is possible to make other links between related issues by
moving the centre of enquiry to any other concept in the map. Hence the radiant map
becomes more integrated and can be considered not as a single enquiry but as a number
of overlapping and interrelated enquiries. An Integrated Mind Map incorporates
multiple centres of enquiry and can ultimately be described as a Semantic Network
where each concept is considered as it’s own centre of enquiry. Integrated Mind Maps
and Semantic Networks provide a framework for designers to take a flexible view of the
problem space, thus being free to move their own subjective viewpoint to any centre of
enquiry. These tools enable the designer to see the problem in many different ways,
creating many potential opportunities for innovation, however if a map develops too
many centres of enquiry it may become too complex to usefully focus our attention. In
this case we may compensate by choosing to see the problem or situation in a particular
way. Whilst such a mental model [19] may help us to cut away complexity and focus
our attention clearly, it can only provide a limited view of the problem and because it
can be subconsciously led by our aims and assumptions the potential for innovation may
in fact be reduced. There is hence a need to identify the cornerstones of our attention.
4
CORNERSTONES OF VALUE INNOVATION
The creative event requires us to hold the entirety of the problem/solution pairing as a
snapshot mental construct, in other words, to picture the ‘Universal form’ [17] of the
design problem. Bruner et al [20] state that this ‘involves the elimination of
irrelevancies where such exist or the evolving of methods of recording stimulus-events
in such a way as to bring them within the compass of attentional or immediate memory
span.’ Whitehead [5] suggests that when considering a design problem we can only
‘span’ a maximum of 6 or 7 cornerstone issues and that the potential for innovation is
dictated by how these slots are filled. Each cornerstone of innovation may relate to the
value of function, experience or social meaning and the resulting design outcome can be
characterised with a corresponding value emphasis as demonstrated in Table 1.
3
Table 1 Value Innovation Case Studies.
Function
Experience
Value
Social Mng
Patent
Design
Trademark
Property
Design
Cornerstones
of Innovation
Low tooling budget
Patented lens / reflector technology
Sealed to IP 66 minimum
Fast assembly
Heat dispersal
1. IR Lighting
Design for a VHS Video case manufacturer
Springy Polypropylene material
Nested cosseted treasured
Push-button release
Developing DVD Technology
Very high volume
2. DVD Case
Identify a quick route to a revenue stream
Specialist inert plastic thin film materials
Research into new joining techniques
Starting a family
Ease of use - disposable lack of after care
Provide Individual dosage
3. Baby bottle
Smart storage
Never forget your keys
Character
Personalisation
4. Key Hanger
Design for domestic lighting
Minimal tooling costs
Polished zinc plated steel wire construction
Cute character – Play on words
High cost/price differential
5. Lamp
Door stop – shows forces and function
One shot moulding
Personality through character and name
‘James’ – Familiar Butler
Minimal packaging
"I beam" shape hints at weight
6. Door Stop
Coca-Cola bottle
Classic American Spencerian script
Heat wave
Glass blowing technology
Ingredients – identified Cacao pod in error
7. Coke Bottle
4
At the top of the table example 1 spans five purely functional cornerstones of innovation
and hence the value of the resulting design is encapsulated primarily in what it does. As
we move down towards the middle of the table functional value becomes more
established and so the innovation represented by examples 2, 3 and 4 is described more
progressively in terms of the sensory experience of using the product. Example. 5
begins to innovate value in terms of social meaning by using the play on words
‘Reading light’ and examples 6 and 7 draw on our deep-rooted associations projecting
meaning onto the product. In 6 the strength of the I-beam profile reinforces the pose of
the figure, in 7 the classic American script rides the more subtle associations of a Cacao
pod shaped blown glass bottle developed during a heat wave. Table 1 suggests that as
functional value is met, a space is created for experiential value innovation and that a
designed experience can form the basis of the social meaning of the product. The table
also points to a close association between different aspects of value and different forms
of intellectual property. In legal terms a patent describes functional and mechanistic
value, a registered design represents sensory and experiential value by focussing on
aspects judged by eye and a Trade or Service Mark is concerned with the value of social
meaning giving rise to the market perception of a brand.
5
CONCLUSION
It is important for designers to be able to model aspects of value as contributing
parameters of design problems. This paper presents two simple value innovation
concepts that used together can lead to the generation of commercially valuable
intellectual property.
Firstly the idea of Value Distinction differentiates between functional value, experiential
value and the value of social meaning. It is rare for a single design to exhibit significant
value innovation in all of these categories and hence the concept may provide a tool to
develop the richness of product value.
Secondly, Cornerstones of Innovation recognise the designers cognitive ‘span’ of up to
6 or 7 key factors that in combination frame the problem. By concept mapping
cornerstones of innovation the designer is able to model problem space at an optimum
psychological size.
By combining these concepts or tools we are able to bring value factors within the 6 or
7 cornerstone issues of our immediate attentional memory span to frame the problem in
a way that releases potential for innovation.
Many modern products have developed a level of performance and reliability that
makes them functionally almost indistinguishable from their competitors. The advanced
nature of the market for some products has reached a level of functional effectiveness
and reliability that leads consumers to base their purchasing decisions more on the value
of the experience or social meaning offered by a product than on its functional value. A
Porsche car for example might be seen as valuable socially and experientially. But in
fact according to What Car [21] Porsche is the most unreliable make on the market, the
most reliable being Skoda, a make which despite it’s excellent reliability is viewed as a
lower value option both socially and experientially. Thus we might aspire to own an
expensive vehicle of relatively low functional value because of its high experiential and
social value. The social meaning of a product can be a very powerful influence on
consumer choices but this is often dependent on functional needs having been
successfully met. The aspects of value discussed in this paper might therefore be best
represented as a hierarchy since it would be implausible to attend to the value of social
meaning of a product without first meeting functional needs.
5
REFERENCES
[1] Schon, D.A. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic
Books, NewYork
[2] Dorst, K & Cross, N (2001) Creativity in the Design Process: co-evolution of problemsolution. Design Studies Volume 22, Issue 5, September, Pages 425-437
[3] Kimbell. L(2007) Wicked Problems and the Tolerance of Ambiguity. The international
conference on Design Principles and Practices, Imperial College, London 4-7 January.
[4] Basadur, Pringle, Speranzini, Bacot (2000) Collaborative problem solving through
creativity in problem definition: Expanding the pie. Creativity and Innovation Management
Volume 9, Number 1, March 2000. Blackwell publishers
[5] Whitehead. C (2007) The Primacy of Ideas in Interdisciplinary Activities. The international
conference on Design Principles and Practices, Imperial College, London 4-7 January.
[6] Buzan, T. (1991). The Mind Map Book . Penguin, New York.
[7] Miles, L.D. (1962)Evaluating Design Factors Affecting Costs And Reliability Of Systems
And Assemblies Conference Paper The American Society Of Mechanical Engineers, Design
Engineering Conf.3 May 1962).
[8] Popper, K. (1973) Objective Knowledge. Oxford University Press, Great Britain. (p 106190).
[9] Simon, H. A. (1969). The architecture of complexity. In The Sciences of the Artificial (pp.
192-229). MIT Press.Cambridge, MA.
[10] Goel, V. (1995). Sketches of thought. MIT Press. Cambridge, MA.
[11] Stacey, R.D. (1993). Strategic Management and Organisational Dynamics. Pitman
Publishing. London (p146-246)
[12] Cross, N. (2004) Creative thinking by expert designers. Journal of design research issue
2004.02).
[13] Newell, A. & Simon, H.A. (1972) Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall..
[14] English, S (2006) Design thinking - Value Innovation - Deductive Reason and the Designers
Choice. Design Research Society Conference, Lisbon 1-4 November.
[15] Young, R. Nathan, D. Whitcombe, M. (2006) Productality – Exploring How to Create
Perceived Personality in Products. Desform Conference, Eindhoven October 26-27.
[16] De Bono, E. (1996) Serious Creativity: Using the Power of Lateral Thinking to Create new
Ideas, harper Collins, London,.
[17] English, S. (2007) Creating Universal Form – Using Universals to Describe Design
Solution Space. International Conference on Design Principles and Practices, Imperial
College, London 4-7 January 2007
[18] Stoyanova, N. Kommers, P (2000) Learning Effectiveness of Concept Mapping in a
Computer Supported Collaborative Problem Solving Design. Faculty of Educational
Science and Technology, University of Twente, The Netherlands.
[19] English, S (2000) Patterns Perceptions and Mental Models. .The Future for Learning
Organisations. ECLO Conference. Munich. May 17-19
[20] Bruner, J. S., Wallach, M.A. Galanter, E.H. (1959)The Identification of Recurrent
Regularity. The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 72, No. 2 (Jun., 1959), pp. 200-209
[21] What Car (2007) Reliability Index http://www.reliabilityindex.co.uk. Accessed 12.03.2007
Acknowledgements
The author gratefully acknowledges the participation of Philips Design Research,
Eindhoven, Glenelg Developments, Leeds, Elan Vital (UK) Ltd, Black and Blum
Design, London and Lloyd Spencer all of whom have contributed case studies.
Stuart ENGLISH
Northumbria University
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 8ST UK.
[email protected]
+44 (0) 191 227 4631
6